Location:
Approximately 600 feet east of the end of Park Road (SR 1204) – See
Attachments A and B

By-right use:
Theoretically 24 development rights on RA zoned property and 24
units on R-6 property for a total of 48 theoretical units.

Magisterial District:
Rivanna

Proffers:
Yes

Proposal: Mixed
residential and commercial development with fire station, religious
institution, and community center with no >125,000 sq. feet of
commercial

Requested # of
Dwelling Units:
Up to 521 units

DA (Development
Area): Village of Rivanna

Comp. Plan
Designation: Community Service and Neighborhood Density
Residential

Character of
Property:
Undeveloped, rolling pastureland, and wooded.

Use of Surrounding
Properties: Low-density rural residential to north, south, and
east, small retail shop and lodge across Rt. 250 East, Glenmore
residential development to west and south.

Factors Favorable:

The proposal is
in substantial conformity with the Land Use Plan recommendations
for the Village of Rivanna and in full conformity with the
Neighborhood Model.

Cash proffers to
deal with off-site impacts are similar to other recently
approved rezonings.

A fully
developed public park is offered to the County to deal with park
needs.

The proposal provides acceptable affordable housing proffers.

Factors Unfavorable:

Staff cannot
support blanket approval for private streets at this time
because of the need for public street interconnections to
adjoining parcels and public street access to the park and fire
station.

There are too
many outstanding issues in need of resolution which are related
to fixed vs. optional elements on the plan, a buffer on Rt. 250
East and on Glenmore Way, architectural standards and
Monticello, landscape standards including the perimeter of the
development, use of retaining walls, questions about uses,
stormwater management and design, proffers for Rt. 250 East, and
details in the Code of Development.

EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential - residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and
other small-scale non-residential uses and Community Service - community-scale
retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities
and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in the Village
of Rivanna Development Area.

The surrounding properties
consist of rural residential, small rural commercial businesses across Route 250
from the proposed development, pastureland, and the Glenmore development.

THE PROPOSAL - GENERALLY

KG Associates has requested a
rezoning of approximately 93 acres in the Village of Rivanna to create a
mixed-use village center. The request
includes 14 parcels. A portion of one of these parcels (5 acres) is part of the
Glenmore Planned Residential Development (PRD). One of the four parcels is
jointly owned by the County and the East Rivanna Fire Department. Another of
the parcels was rezoned in 1997 for 24 units. The land requested for rezoning
is entirely within the Development Area of the Village of Rivanna.

Attachment A is the ZMA Master Plan that is
also the General Development Plan required for a Neighborhood Model District.
Attachment B contains the proffers. Attachment C is the action letter describing
the review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB. The Code of Development
dated February 5, 2007 accompanies this rezoning but is not attached because of
its size. A copy is provided in the packet for review by the Commission and
Board of Supervisors.

APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE REQUEST

The applicant has
requested the rezoning to accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for a
mixed-use development in the Village of Rivanna.

PLANNING AND ZONING
HISTORY

In 1990, the Board of
Supervisors approved the Glenmore Planned Residential Development (ZMA90-19)
Between 1990 and 2000, there were several additions to the Glenmore
Development. ZMA 93-19, ZMA 96-28, ZMA 97-08, and ZMA 99-16 added approximately
64 acres to the development and increased the number of units from 750 to 813.
In 1995, the Board of Supervisors amended the setback requirements in the
development with ZMA 94-26. This zoning history affects only TMP 93A1-1.

TMP’s 93A1-2, 3, and 4 were not
part of the Glenmore rezoning; however, proffers for Glenmore affected these
three parcels. TMP 93A1-2 is the parcel jointly owned by the County and the
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, which was proffered for a fire station and
other public uses. TMP's 93A1 – 3 and 4 contain area for which a 27-acre school
site or other public use was proffered during the Glenmore rezoning and retained
throughout all of the subsequent Glenmore zonings.

TMP 79-25A was rezoned in 1997
from RA to R-6 with proffered plan for 24 attached units.

TMP 80-46 was issued a special
use permit in 1985 (SP 1985-059); staff is still researching this SP.

This rezoning was initially
submitted on April 23, 2001 in combination with a request for a comprehensive
plan amendment and a zoning text amendment. The Planning Commission advised the
applicant that the rezoning should be deferred until a comprehensive plan
amendment (CPA) was reviewed and acted on by the Board. The Commission agreed
to process the CPA and the zoning text amendment (ZTA) concurrently. The ZTA
ultimately became the Neighborhood Model zoning district which was approved in
March of 2003.

The Commission reviewed and
discussed the proposed CPA at six meetings between May 2001 and March 2002. The
Commission recommended approval of the CPA on March 26, 2002. The Board of
Supervisors reviewed and discussed the CPA on April 3, 2002 and May 15, 2002 at
which time they adopted the amendment. A copy of the adopted CPA is included
as Attachment E. Attachment F contains the approved plan that was part of the
CPA. Attachment G contains information that is referenced in the CPA.

BACKGROUND

Five worksessions have been
held on this rezoning since July 2005. They were held on July 12, 2005,
September 27, 2005, July 18, 2006, August 29, 2006, and December 12, 2006. At
the August 29, 2006 worksession, the Commission discussed a modified park
design, overall density, affordable housing, and the relationship to Livengood
property. The Commission answered these questions:

Should the Rivanna
Village at Glenmore development be modified to allow for interconnections and a
relationship to the Livengood property?

Rivanna Village design does not
need to be modified for any future connections to the Livengood property.
Connections shown on the Rivanna Village Plan provide the interconnection
opportunities needed for the future.

Does the new design
sufficiently address the Planning Commission’s request for the park to have
natural areas and potentially retain the quarry?

Yes.

Is a minimum density
essential? If so, is 4 dwellings per acre an acceptable density? While
the Commission did not conclude that a minimum density was essential, they did
discuss the problems related to keeping track of minimum density. The
Commission said that 4 dwelling units per acre gross is acceptable; how that
density is tracked was not important to the Commission.

If the minimum density in
a block is exceeded, can the minimum density in a different block be decreased
by a like amount?

The Commission agreed that they
were concerned about the gross dwellings per acre and that modifications such as
these were fine.

Can the minimum density
be based on the total area minus the assisted living facility?

The Commission answered
affirmatively.

Is the affordable housing
proposal appropriate for Rivanna Village at Glenmore?

The Commission said that the
proposal for affordable housing in substance is acceptable.

SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL

Page 14 of the Code of
Development, the ZMA Master Plan shows the proposed layout of the development
and Page 17 of the Code of Development shows the Regulating Block Plan. The
Regulating Block Plan identifies the different blocks in the development which
are described on pages 18 – 22. Table 4 on page 27 of the Code of Development
gives many of the important details of the development. A minimum of 348 units
and a maximum of 521 units are proposed. A minimum of 94,501 square feet and
maximum of 172,001 square feet of non-residential use, including the fire
station of 23,001 square feet, are proposed.

The specific blocks are
described as follows:

Block A – Is expected to
have a church (religious facility), community center or “inn”.

Blocks B, H, and K – Are
expected to have only single family detached units and associated uses. These
blocks are adjacent to existing single-family residential areas.

Block C – Contains the
“White Gable” product which is a multi-story multi-family complex of
condominiums.

Blocks D & L – Are
residential blocks which allows for all residential unit types, but no other
types of uses.

Blocks G & J – Are
“mixed use” blocks which allow for all residential unit types, assisted living,
clubs & lodges, a community center, eating establishments, and swim, golf,
tennis and swimming facilities. The use of these blocks is expected to be
primarily residential with a small mixture of the other allowable uses. If
provided, the assisted living facility would go into Block G.

Block E – Block E is the
true “mixed use” commercial area. Up to 125,000 square feet is allowed with a
variety of uses. All residential use types are allowed in Block E as well.

Block F –
Contains the existing fire station.

Block I – Contains the
community park.

The “fixed” elements are
proposed as:

The street system and blocks

The location of the park

The location of a religious or civic use in
Block A

The “White Gables” product and form in Block C

The fire station location in Block F

The mixed-use commercial center of Block E

The single-family detached product in Block B,
Block H, and Block K

The “buffer” area on Glenmore Way and Route 250
East

The
elements that may be different than shown on the “ZMA Master Plan” are

The location of the recreational “club” for
residents of the development, currently shown in Block J. Blocks A, E, G,
H, I, or J could have the recreational center. (This issue is discussed
later in the report.)

The location of an assisted living facility
which is not shown on the plan. It could be in Blocks G only.

The exact mixture of residential and
non-residential uses in Block E.

Staff notes that some of these
locations have changed between the last staff report and this report. Concerns
are noted at the endof this report. Also, a discussion on the distinctions
between the ZMA Master Plan and the Code of Development is discussed later in
the report.

CONFORMITY WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Comprehensive Plan
Recommendation

Rivanna Village at
Glenmore Application Plan, Code, and Proffers

Environmental and Historic Protection

Preserve as open space the
extensive floodplain and critical slopes along the Rivanna River,
Carroll Creek and other streams. Provide a greenway along the
Rivanna River. Protect the unique scenic and historic
characteristics of the river with the development of the Village.

Rivanna Village at
Glenmore is located over a mile away, to the north of the Rivanna
River. It is located approximately ¾ miles from Carroll Creek. Neither
of these resources is expected to be visually or physically affected by
the development. Proposed stormwater management is not expected to
adversely impact Carroll Creek.

Within approximately
one mile radius of the subject parcel are approximately 22 resources
considered to be historic according to the Department of Historic
Resources. There is no additional adverse impact expected as a result of
this proposed rezoning due to previous development and/or geographic
locations of the resources.

To the west of the
project area is the Glenmore Manor House, built c. 1795, and identified
as potentially eligible for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register
and the National Register of Historic Places. The applicant has
proposed a 100 foot buffer along Glenmore Way to help to mitigate any
adverse visual impacts between the historic structure and proposed
development.

Areas north of Interstate 64 have
historic/scenic significance to the
County and region (including possible designation as a Rural
Historic District and have large acreage in an Agricultural/Forestal
District). To preserve and protect these resources, do not expand
the Village boundaries north of U. S. Route 250 East, west of Route
22, nor south of the Rivanna River.

The rezoning does not
seek to expand the Village boundaries. The proposed development is
located entirely within the development area.

Utilities

Maintain capacity for anticipated
development, public facilities, and public services.

ACSA indicates that
water supply is adequate for Rivanna Village. The applicant will need
to expand the sewage treatment facility which they constructed for
Glenmore in order to have sewage capacity. The applicant knows they are
obligated to provide the expansion to the treatment plant.

Public Facilities

Locate public facilities such as a
school, library, police substation, or playing field, when needed in
the Village in the Community Service Area.

Albemarle County
Schools Division does not see the need for a new school in the eastern
part of the County for the foreseeable future. At present, there is no
library in the CIP proposed specifically for the Village of Rivanna. A
library to serve the eastern part of the County has been suggested for
the Pantops area as part of the master planning process for Pantops.

If and when needed, a
police substation can be accommodated in the existing fire station or on
the remaining 3 acres of land owned by the County and the fire company.
At present a police satellite area for convenience exists at the fire
station. A public park is proposed at the eastern end of the
development. It would contain the features described on page 35 of the
Code of Development.

Transportation

Provide
interconnections between existing development and areas to be developed in the Village of Rivanna.

Four proposed
interconnections to undeveloped parcels will allow the development to be
connected with the rest of the Village of Rivanna.

Provide several points of access from
Route 250 East into the Village that help to create an internal road
network for the Village so that properties that front Route 250 may have
access to Route 250 through the internal road network.

There is one entrance
from Route 250 into the site and the other entrance is from Glenmore Way
near Route 250 East. Four interconnections are proposed to adjoining
parcels and three connections to Glenmore Way are proposed.

Provide
for pedestrian and bicycle access
throughout the Village.

Pedestrian access is
proposed through use of sidewalks throughout the development. Separate
bicycle lanes are not proposed within the development.

Upgrade Route 250 East to improve
traffic safety and circulation in the area. Many of the necessary
improvements are described in the Route 250 East Corridor Study.
Improvements should:

Provide the minimum level of
improvement necessary to support anticipated development along Route 250
East from the eastern city limits to the County line.

The Board of
Supervisors has not yet endorsed or approved the Route 250 East Corridor
Study and its recommendations for widening Route 250 to four lanes in
some areas and six lanes in other areas. No widening of Route 250 is
expected with this rezoning; however, the applicant includes cash
proffers to be applied towards County capital improvements, including
mitigation of traffic impacts. Information on impacts to Route 250 East
is provided later in this report.

Be designed to minimize the visual
impact adjacent to historic properties and sites including Monticello
and the Southwest Mountain Historic District.

The applicant has
provided a detailed Code of Development including architectural and
landscape standards. Architectural standards and the relationship to
Monticello are discussed later in this report.

Provide a traffic signal at the
intersection of Route 250 East and Glenmore Way when warrants are met.

The Glenmore rezoning
included proffers for a traffic signal at this location when warrants
are met. VDOT will advise the owner of Glenmore when to install the
signal.

Be provided by both the public sector
and private sector to ensure that existing traffic needs are met as well
as future traffic needs generated by proposed developments are met.

If accepted, proffers
from the applicant for the rezoning will contain cash to be added to any
public monies for future capital improvements.

Be streetscaped in strategic locations
to improve the character of the corridor, especially at or near the I-64
interchange and along the commercial strip of development between I-64
and the railroad crossing.

No streetscaping is
proposed along Route 250 with this project. A 100-foot wide landscape
area is proffered across the frontage of the property. The landscape
area may be reduced if additional lanes are added to Route 250 East.
The applicant would like to address specific landscape issues during the
site plan process. This issue is discussed later in the report.

Have landscaped medians where median
strips are necessary.

Until a plan for Route
250 East is approved, it will not be known whether medians in this
section of the road are appropriate.

Minimize lighting at intersections and
be installed to meet the County lighting ordinance for down-shielded
lights

This goal is also
contingent on adoption of a plan for Route 250 East.

Provide bicycle facilities and, where
appropriate, walkways in conjunction with these upgrades.

This goal is also
contingent on adoption of a plan for Route 250 East.

Provide mass transit, where feasible,
to the Village of Rivanna.

At present, mass
transit is not available to the Village of Rivanna nor is it expected to
be needed for the foreseeable future. The applicant has indicated that
the development is “transit ready” because of the grid street system.
This issue is discussed later in the report.

Areas Shown as
Community Service

Are intended to be developed as a
compact, higher density residential area with a mixture of retail
businesses, services, public facilities, and civic spaces.

The area shown for
commercial use in a “Main Street” has a more eastward orientation than
the design referenced in the Land Use Plan. The change in orientation
was a result of community input and represents more of a “shifting” than
a significant redesign from the CPA approved plan.

May have residential density of up to 6
dwellings per gross acre in addition to the non-residential uses. This
density can be increased if the non-residential square footage
decreases.

Minimum density is
proposed at a range of 4 units per acre and maximum density is proposed
at 6 dwelling units. If an assisted living facility is provided, it
does not count towards the minimum density or against the maximum
density. There are several properties which are shown as neighborhood
density residential (3- 6 unit/acre) on the Land Use Plan which may have
a higher density on a parcel basis than the Land Use Plan recommends.
When asked if this situation was problematic, the Planning Commission
said that it was not because, overall, the development would not exceed
6 dwellings per acre.

Areas designated as
Community Service should contain:

A grid street
system of interconnected roadways which are neo-traditional as
characterized by narrow widths, on-street parking, curb, gutter,
sidewalks, and street trees.

The proposed
development contains a grid street system with the characteristics
described to the left.

Housing that
provides opportunities for all age groups, including senior housing and
housing for all socioeconomic levels to live in the Village of
Rivanna.

Senior housing in the
form of assisted living is included as a by-right use in the
development. Proffers are made for affordable housing which meet the
County’s policy. The Code of Development provides the specifics.

Non-residential
uses, mostly in small commercial, office, retail and restaurant/inn
uses. Total commercial, office, retail, and service square footage
should not exceed 240,000 square feet for the Village. Automobile repair
and self-storage areas are not considered to be appropriate uses to this
Community Service area.

The development
proposal shows a minimum of 94,501square feet on non-residential
use excluding the fire station. Maximum square footage of
non-residential square footage is 125,000 exclusive of the park and fire
station. This square footage does include a religious facility and
community center for residents. Auto repair and self-storage are not
included as uses in the Code of Development.

Commercial uses
interior to the Village rather than “highway oriented” uses along Route
250.

The internal
orientation of the development, the location of residential uses and the
provision of a wide landscape area along Route 250 East, suggest that
this goal is met.

Mass, scale,
and architectural detailing of buildings that provide for a “human
scale” development that supports pedestrians.

Table 8 of the Code of
Development indicates a maximum of 4 stories in the commercial core of
the development, mostly 2.5 stories where the property abuts existing
single-family detached residential development, and up to 3 stories
everywhere else. Build-to lines are provided to help provide the
appropriate spatial enclosure that sets up a human-scale. Details on
Architecture in the Code of Development are in need of refinement.
Architecture and setbacks are discussed later in this report.

A
well-integrated pedestrian system, including sidewalks and paths.

A pedestrian system
provided along every street in the development and paths are provided in
the park. Details of the location of paths are provided later in this
report.

A fire station located either
on Route 250 or interior to the Village.

The location of the
existing fire station is not proposed to change with this development.

Other civic buildings
including schools, churches, community centers and public offices
located within the Village.

Religious institutions,
community centers, public offices, and schools are all permitted uses in
the Code of Development.

A variety of park and
recreational amenities including open space appropriate to the
residential needs of the Village.

A park with amenities
is provided as part of the development. Other green space is provided
throughout the development. The specific locations and quantities will
be discussed in a later staff report. Overall, 48.8% of the area is in
green space and 26.6% of the site is dedicated to amenities.

In addition to density of 6
dwellings per acre and 240,000 square feet of nonresidential space, the
area may have nursing homes and assisted living facilities.

Assisted living
facilities are listed as a by-right use in several blocks in the Code of
Development.

Are to be designed and
developed in general accord with the design for the Rivanna Village at
Glenmore prepared by the Cox Company on March 6, 2001 2/26/02 and pages
4 – 7 and 17 – 19 of the Application for Comprehensive Plan and Land Use
Map Amendment dated March 6, 2001 with the following exceptions. No
commercial uses are to take place on the property adjacent to the most
eastern entrance from Route 250 East. The large vacant area shown with
trees at the corner of Route 250 East and Glenmore Way should be
available for development with internal access but no direct access from
Route 250 East or Glenmore Way. No retail use of this area is allowed.

As discussed by the
Planning Commission at several worksessions, a lake is no longer a
feature of the development. The “commons” has also been removed as a
feature of the plan. The need for the commons has diminished as a
result of the addition of the park which is easily accessible to almost
all residences. The 18 acre public park along with the Main Street area
is the focal point of the development. Residential uses are proposed on
the property adjacent to the eastern entrance from Route 250 East. The
large vacant area shown with trees at the corner of Route 250 East and
Glenmore Way is not shown for any development.

Should be developed in a manner that is
sensitive to its location within Monticello’s viewshed in accordance
with the Monticello Viewshed Guidelines for Developers.

The applicant has
indicated they are working with Monticello and will be amending their
Architectural standards in response to comments from Monticello. Staff
is not aware yet of the conclusions.

Should be developed in a way that
minimizes adverse impacts on residential properties adjoining the
Community Service area by preserving mature vegetation, having
residences abut adjoining residential properties, use of buffering,
screening and berming and use of wide buffer strips.

On the ZMA Master Plan,
the applicant has shown single-family residential uses andtrees
between the Magruder subdivision (the single family development along
Rt. 250 between the entrance to Glenmore and the new entrance to the
project) and the development. These trees are considered illustrative
and not essential parts of the plan by the applicant. Earlier in the
review process, the applicant showed parking areas adjacent to the
Magruder subdivision. Concerns by the neighbors prompted the inclusion
of the statements to the left. A long-standing county policy has been
to not screen adjoining residential uses from one another. However,
during the Comprehensive Plan process, the Planning Commission indicated
that existing mature trees should be retained on the border of the
development. This treatment should be addressed in the Code of
Development.

Community Service Areas
should have parking that is:

Not in excess of that necessary to
support individual uses in the Community Service area is discouraged.

Zoning is allowing the
development to use a shopping center parking calculation for the
non-residential uses. Use of a shopping-center category reduces the
amount of parking for each individual use. Zoning has been concerned
that sufficient parking be provided for the use development and that
sharing not short-change residents or businesses of needed spaces. The
applicant has endeavored to satisfy this CPA recommendation as well as
satisfy the Zoning Division. At this juncture, both appear to be
satisfied.

Shared with other uses whenever
possible.

East Rivanna Fire and
Rescue Company has said that their parking lot will be available for
overflow parking needs at the park; other shared parking opportunities
will be explored during the site plan process.

Located in ways to minimize visual
impacts and heat generated by large areas of pavement

The ZMA Master Plan
shows buildings and parking in Block E; however, the exact location of
those buildings and parking could change. To help mitigate the visual
impact of parking lots adjacent to the street, the Code of Development
says that parking lots of more than 4 spaces will be “buffered” from the
street by a 3-foot hedge, a 3’ opaque wall/fence or “other features to
reduce the visibility”. Staff has expressed concern to the applicant
that commitments are needed to ensure that Main Street and the main
entry-way from Route 250 East will be “lined” with buildings and not
parking. This issue is discussed later in the report.

Buffered and screened from neighboring
residential properties in areas shown as Neighborhood Density using a
combination of techniques such as including landscaping, screening,
fencing, or berming.

The ZMA Master Plan
shows trees at the exterior of the development adjacent to single-family
areas; however, the Code of Development does not provide supplementary
information on any standards to be used for retaining trees or
additional tree plantings. The landscaping section of the Code needs to
be enhanced to discuss perimeter landscaping standards.

A Neighborhood Model Analysis
is provided below:

Pedestrian Orientation

With sidewalks, street trees, paths, and a
pedestrian scale, the development has an appropriate pedestrian
orientation. This principle is met.

Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths

Neighborhood friendly
streets and paths are characterized by street trees, sidewalks, and
buildings with shallow setbacks. This principle is met.

Interconnected Streets
and Transportation Networks

The project shows four
interconnections to adjoining properties and a grid street system is
provided internally. The interconnections were affirmed by the Planning
Commission during worksessions. The principle for interconnections is
met. Staff believes that more work is needed relative to transit to
better meet this principle.

Parks and Open Space

An 18 acre public park is
provided with amenities for the development and for others outside of
the development. The improvements and design have been approved by the
Director of Parks and Recreation. This principle is met.

Neighborhood Centers

A neighborhood center is
provided along Main Street in Block E. It will have commercial and
residential uses. This principle is met.

Relegated Parking

The General Plan of
Development shows parking that is relegated; however, because building
layout could change, commitments are needed as to where parking can
front the street in and near the Main Street Area. The applicant
proposes to address this situation with changes to the Code of
Development and with an additional graphic depiction showing “fixed”
elements and places where the relationship of buildings and parking can
change. This image does not exist yet and should be reviewed by the
Commission to ensure that it adequately represents the Commission’s
expectations.

Mixture of Uses

Mixture of Housing Types
and Affordability

As indicated in the Code of
Development, single-family detached, single-family attached,
multi-family, carriage houses, and garrets are proposed. The Code
indicates that no less than 40% of the units will be for-sale. The Code
does not indicate the percentage of “accessory-type” or “subordinate
units” to be built. Staff believes that a commitment should be made to
provide a low percentage of the overall affordable units as
“accessory-type”.

Redevelopment

The site is currently
undeveloped and this principle does not apply.

Site Planning that
Respects Terrain

Unlike many development
area properties, this property is more rolling than steep and has only
two isolated areas of critical slopes that would not be affected by the
development. The grading plan indicates that steep slopes will not
created with this development; however, the Code of Development states
that, “Given the terrain variations of the subject property, as well as
the topographic relationship to contiguous tracts, retaining walls at
Rivanna village cannot be avoided.” Unfortunately, no standards for
retaining walls are provided in the Code of Development nor are any
commitments to regrade slopes to 3:1 or better. Staff believes that the
Code should address heights of retaining walls as well as regraded
slopes.

Clear Boundaries with
the Rural Areas

The project is located
entirely within the Development Areas so this principle is not
applicable.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
COMMENTS

The Architectural Review Board
met on March 5, 2007 to provide preliminary comments on the project as it
relates to the Entrance Corridor. The staff report provided to the ARB is
provided as Attachment D. Before providing comments, the ARB asked if the
expectation for Rivanna Village was an internally oriented development or if it
was intended to have a face to Route 250 East. Staff and the applicant
responded that the intent was for Rivanna Village at Glenmore to have an
internal orientation. For that reason, the ARB said that the appearance along
the EC should be one that screens the development from view. The ARB said
that, if Route 250 East is ever widened, 20 feet would be an insufficient area
to create such a buffer and recommended that 75 feet of undeveloped area outside
of the area reserved for dedication be available for this buffer. Additionally,
at least one member stressed that the Planning Commission should reconsider its
decision to have the park located where it is shown on the plan because a
portion of the park placed adjacent to Route 250 could serve as the recommended
buffer between the EC and the development. The ARB voted unanimously that the
project should receive a full review by the ARB prior to a rezoning action.

Prior to the vote taken by the
ARB, the applicant expressed that the Commission has been requesting that the
development provide at least 4 dwellings per acre, and that creating a large
buffer area would result in a loss of density for the development.
Additionally, the applicant conveyed their concerns that widening of the Route
250 corridor at this location might never happen. These comments were not
sufficient to sway the ARB that a 75’ buffer was excessive.

STAFF COMMENT

Relationship between the application and the
purpose and intent of the requested zoning district:
From the Zoning Ordinance:

The NMD is intended
to provide for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale,massing, density,
and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within
closeproximity to each
other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan.

The proposal meets the intent of the Neighborhood
Model District.

Public need and justification for the change:The County’s Comprehensive Plan supports
rezoning proposals which are in conformity with recommendations for use,
density, and form. The proposal is in conformity with use, density, and form
recommended in the Land Use Plan.

Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: No
environmental resources shown on the County’s Open Space Plan have been
identified on the property. An old quarry that is on the property is intended
to be preserved at the park site and become an amenity at the park. If the
Parks Director finds that safety would be compromised by retaining the quarry,
the quarry may be filled with dirt; however, it is the intent of the County
Parks and Recreation Department to preserve the quarry. Filling it in it would
only be a last resort.

One significant historic
resource exists to the west of the project area. It is the Glenmore Manor
House, built c. 1795, and identified as potentially eligible for listing on the
Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. The
applicant has proposed a 100 foot landscape and screening buffer along Glenmore
Way to help to mitigate any adverse visual impacts between the historic
structure and proposed development.

Anticipated impact on public facilities and services

Streets:
Staff believes that the single most significant impact on public facilities will
be the impact on Route 250 East. Route 250 East from Charlottesville to the
I-64 is a four-lane divided highway with a raised median in places, center turn
lanes in other places, and paved shoulders. From the Shadwell Interchange to
Fluvanna County (and beyond) it is predominantly a two-lane highway with varying
pavement widths and shoulder widths. At present, traffic volume estimates on
Route 250 East are as follows:

·Between Route 22 and I-64 – 22,000
v.p.d.

·Between Route 22 and Route 1054
(Glenmore Way) – 9300 v.p.d.

·Between Route 1054 (Glenmore Way) and
the Albemarle-Fluvanna County Line – 5,500 v.p.d.

These figures have not changed
substantially between 2001 and 2006.

In early 1999, Albemarle County
began participation in the Route 250 East Corridor Study along with the MPO,
Fluvanna and Louisa Counties, the TJPDC, and the City of Charlottesville. All of
these entities were involved in the study because of the regional traffic issues
relating to this corridor. The study was intended to establish the long-term
recommendations for improvements to this primary road. Recommendations included
widening Route 250 East from 4-lanes to 6-lanes with continuous right-turn lanes
from Charlottesville city limits to I-64, widening Route 250 from 2-lanes to
4-lanes from Route 22 to Route 616 (Black Cat Road).

The Board never adopted or
endorsed these recommendations and has no adopted plan yet for improvements to
Route 250 East. Currently, the County is participating in another Route 250
East study that the TJPDC and Renaissance Planning Group are performing for
Fluvanna and Louisa County. It is called the Northwest Fluvanna/Southwest
Louisa Corridor Study: Eastern Albemarle Sub-Area Study.

The study pertains to Zion
Crossroads and as an add-on to that project, the County contracted with the
TJPDC to study from the County line to the I-64 interchange

The specific objectives of the
study were to:

-Undertake a network analysis
of the Rt. 250 Corridor (study area I-64 on the west and Rt. 22 on the north and
west, the County line on the east and Rt. 53 on the south).

The Study did consider traffic
impacts on the Rt. 250 west of I-64. At this time, the consultant believes that
a six-lane divided road, from I-64 to Free Bridge, is the most appropriate
design for this segment of road, with the possible need for an eight-lane
section between the I-64 interchange and the eastern most entrance to Peter
Jefferson Place (a future through road). A six-lane divided road is the
improvement recommended in the draft Pantops Plan.

In 2001, the applicant for this
rezoning conducted a traffic impact study which was recently updated by the
applicant and reviewed by VDOT. Traffic expected from the proposed development
was 11,534 v.p.d. Over the course of review of the rezoning, no specific
improvements on Route 250 East were identified to which the applicant could
contribute. Staff had been recommending that the applicant make cash proffers
to be used on any future projects related to the Route 250 East Corridor. The
only guidance staff could provide relative to a cash proffer amount was to
direct the applicant to prior rezonings.

In 2006, the County asked the
applicant to identify any changes relative to background traffic and the
relationship of the development to Route 250 East. Because the maximum
non-residential development in the project was decreased between 2001 and 2006,
the projected traffic also decreased. The development is now expected to
generate 10,623 v.p.d. As noted in 2001, this figure would be twice the amount
of traffic traveling on Route 250 East between Rt. 22 and Glenmore Way.

Until the last few weeks, no
change in a recommendation relative to a cash proffer for transportation was
anticipated. However, VDOT has been looking closely at the Biscuit Run traffic
impacts and in conjunction with the preliminary recommendations from the
Northwest Fluvanna/Southwest Louisa Corridor Study: Eastern Albemarle Sub-Area
Study, believes it important to apply the same methodology to Rivanna Village as
to Biscuit Run.

VDOT provided the attached
information concerning impacts to the Route 250 East Corridor the day of
completion of this report. (See Attachment I.) Staff notes that none of the
improvements referenced in Attachment I have been endorsed by the Board of
Supervisors or adopted into a plan. The only difference between 2001 and 2006
is that VDOT can now estimate the percentage impact of this proposal on the
network.

VDOT is estimating that
approximately 24% of the new daily traffic between Glenmore and Shadwell will be
attributable to Rivanna Village at Glenmore. Using this percentage and
estimating proportionate shares of improvement costs, VDOT believes that Rivanna
Village at Glenmore’s proportionate share would be $7.5 million.

Having this information so late
in the process makes analysis very difficult, so staff includes it for
information to the Commission and the Board as they react to the project’s cash
proffers and other benefits.

Without criticizing VDOT’s
work, staff notes that, when analyzing traffic studies, VDOT generally looks at
uses independent of one another and allows only a 15% capture rate for internal
traffic. Staff believes that the capture rate will be higher because of the
ability of Glenmore residents to reduce their trips on Route 250 East by finding
convenience items inside the Village. There will be the ability for some
workers in the Village to also live in the Village.

In addition, a reverse commute
will take place for workers living in Charlottesville going to work in Rivanna
Village. The percentage of the reverse commute is not known; however, the
opportunity for the reverse commute is fairly high. Also, the village will
provide the ability for persons driving from the eastern part of the County into
Pantops for convenience items to stop at Rivanna Village rather than go all the
way to Pantops. The Commission and Board will need to also factor in the
advantages of accepting a development which so closely meets the principles of
the Neighborhood Model and provides the high quality community park before
concluding that cash proffers for transportation are not sufficient.

As stated in early staff
reports for the CPA, VDOT believes that the additional traffic will not, in and
of itself, create the need for the improvements recommended in both the 250 East
Corridor Study and the TJPDC-RPG study. VDOT believes that it will accelerate
the need for the widening improvements. In addition, VDOT believes that the
improvements shown on page 45 of the traffic impact study (attached as
Attachment H) are necessary for the development. These are improvements that
are either proffered or that VDOT will require with site plans and plats. In
addition, the applicant is proffering additional right-of-way to accommodate any
future widening of Route 250 East.

Schools: Pupils from the
new development would attend Stone Robinson Elementary School, Burley Middle
School, and Monticello High School. Information on the numbers of students will
be provided with the Fiscal Impact Analysis.

Fire, Rescue, Police: Fire and Rescue
service is provided through the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department which is
located within the development. Police officers use this facility as a
satellite office when they are on-patrol.

Utilities: The Village of Rivanna is
served by a package sewage treatment plant at Glenmore that is operated by the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) retails the service to the County. Glenmore Associates paid for the
construction of the sewage treatment plant and, according to the ACSA, Glenmore
will be responsible for the cost of necessary expansions for their development.
Water capacity is sufficient to serve the development.

Stormwater Management – The applicant has proposed underground stormwater
management with use of bmp’s for water quality. A detention pond is shown near
the fire station which may be needed for Block C – the White Gables product.
Agreements with the County and Fire Department will be needed in order for the
detention pond to be located on the fire station parcel. Preliminary
indications from the Fire Department are that the facility can be located there
as long as it doesn’t impeded Fire Department functions and as long as the Fire
Department doesn’t have to maintain it. Staff has asked the applicant to make
clear in the Code of Development and/or proffers that if the stormwater facility
is not provided on the Fire Department/County Glenmore Associates will have to
find an alternate way to provide stormwater and not impact the integrity of the
design of the project.

Affordable Housing – The Code of Development contains the applicant’s plan
for providing affordable housing. Housing is proposed as for-sale and
for-rent. In terms of types of housing, there will be townhouses, apartments,
and carriage houses (a form of for-rent housing). At least 40% of the housing
will be for-sale. At his option, the applicant could provide single-family
detached housing; however, it is unlikely that this will take place as the
homeowners’ dues could place a financial burden on the owner of the affordable
units. In addition to the for-sale and for-rent products, the applicant intends
to provide cash-in-lieu of units ($16,500) in the single-family blocks where
carriage units are not provided. In the Code of Development, a commitment is
made to provide at least 10% and no more than 30% affordable units or cash.

Minor
tweaks are needed to the language in the Code of Development to ensure that all
of these conditions can be enforced. In addition to the minor changes, staff
believes that the applicant needs to commit to a percentage of accessory-type
units as previously stated. With this change and the minor wording changes, the
Housing Director can recommend approval of the strategy, which was affirmed by
the Planning Commission at their last worksession.

Fiscal Impact Analysis: The Fiscal
Impact Analysis was not available at the writing of this report. It will either
be sent electronically or handed out at the Commission meeting.

Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding
properties: The proposed rezoning has been the subject of many
meetings over the last two years. At least three public meetings have been held
by and for the community. The Planning Commission has held five worksessions on
the project in addition to a worksession on a 2006 proposed comprehensive plan
amendment. The reasons for these meetings have been to answer questions of
concerned residents who believe that the project will have a negative impact on
their small community. The applicant has worked steadfastly with many members
of the community to try to develop a plan which addresses their concerns. Many
of these residents have attended the worksessions to provide input to the
Planning Commission.

At this juncture, staff believes that the only
negative impact will be to accelerate the need for improvements to Route 250
East. The types of improvements, however, are unknown since the Board of
Supervisors has not yet endorsed a plan for Route 250 East. Proffers have been
made which can be applied to Route 250 improvements at such date that the County
decides what improvements should be made.

PROFFERS

Attachment B contains the current proffers which are explained as follows:

1.Community Development Authority
Participation – The applicant has proffered to have non-residential uses
participate in a CDA if the Board of Supervisors desires to use a CDA for
helping to fund transportation improvements. Although several rezonings in
recent years included a similar proffer, the Board has not been as interested in
this kind of proffer lately to fund needed improvements. Staff sees no problem
in accepting this proffer. The Board will ultimately decide whether it is
important to retain.

2.Cash Proffer for Capital
Improvements: The applicant is making cash proffers for funding traffic
improvement projects within or immediately adjacent to the Village of Rivanna as
identified in the County’s Capital Improvements Program or school projects at
Stone-Robinson Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and Monticello High
School as identified in the County School’s Capital Improvement Program.
Contributions are $3,500 for each single family detached unit, $3,000 for each
townhouse unit and $2,500 for each multifamily unit.

Regarding adequacy of the proffers, staff believes that, based on its actions on
recent residential rezonings, the Board has set an expectation for offsets to
impacts caused by residential developments. Different types and levels of
rezonings will have different impacts. The location of the proposed development
also plays into the amount and type of offsets needed. As such, staff must rely
on previous actions of the Board as guidance to applicants on expectations for
off-sets to impacts of new development.

Staff
believes that the largest impact from the development will be related to traffic
for which the applicant is offering $2500- $3500 per unit. The total amount the
County will receive from this proffer cannot be determined yet because the
market will determine the ultimate number and mix of units. Staff thinks this
proffer will generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 million. Staff notes
that this cash proffer would be received over time and not all at once. In
addition, the Board of Supervisors would have to determine whether the amount
should all go to transportation or be shared with the Schools division for
school improvements.

As
previously stated in this staff report, off-site transportation improvements are
difficult to address because the Board of Supervisors has not adopted any plans
regarding Route 250 East, but, it can be assumed that any improvement to Route
250 East will be well in excess of $1 million. In the absence of a cash proffer
policy or plan for improving Route 250 East, staff believes the cash proffer is
sufficient based on other rezonings recently approved.

3.Route 250 and Eastern
Entrance Improvements – The applicant has proffered to provide turn lanes at
the eastern entrance on Route 250 before requesting a building permit for the
first residential unit as well as provide a traffic signal, if and when
warranted by VDOT. Staff believes that the turn lanes will be required by
VDOT. This proffer is intended to allay concerns by the residents of Glenmore
that Glenmore Way will be the initial entrance into the development. Staff
believes that an additional proffer to ensure that construction traffic uses the
easterly entrance might go further to quell the concerns of existing residents.

4.Route 250 and Glenmore Way
Improvement – The applicant has proffered to install a signal at the
entrance to Glenmore prior to approval of the last plat creating the final lots
in Rivanna Village at Glenmore. Staff notes that a similar proffer exists for
the Glenmore development. The difference is that the sunset on the Glenmore
proffer is April 12, 2010.

5.Construction of Steamer
Drive Improvements – Steamer Drive is the existing street which provides
access to the Fire Station and the street which would be improved to help
establish the blocks and street network in Rivanna Village at Glenmore.
Glenmore Associates, which is making the proffers for the development, does not
control the fire station parcel which is owned jointly by the County and the
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company. Because ERVFC does not wish to participate
in the construction of the street or sidewalks along the jointly-owned property,
easements will be needed in order for Glenmore Associates to construct the
street lawn, street trees and sidewalk. If for some reason ERVFC fails to grant
the easements, the applicant does not want to be responsible for these
improvements.

Under usual circumstances, all owners of properties
included in a rezoning would be responsible for signing proffers and making
commitments such as these. The County’s partial ownership of the fire station
parcel prohibits this parcel from being covered by proffers. [The County can’t
accept proffers from itself.] For this reason, the County Attorney’s office has
said that the conditioning the improvements on future easements is acceptable.
A much better way to ensure that the improvements can be made would be for the
ERVFC to make a written commitment to Glenmore Associates that the easements
will be provided when requested.

6.Construction and Dedication
of Parks and Recreation Improvements -- The ZMA Master Plan shows a public
community-level park within the development which the applicant has offered to
dedicate and construct. This proffer has been quite complicated because the
same property previously was offered to the County for a school or other public
facility in the Glenmore proffers. It was subsequently determined that a school
was not desired at this location and that a park was preferred.
The proposed park in this rezoning is approximately
18 acres whereas the original Glenmore proffer was for 27 acres. Approximately
3 acres is taken up in streets surrounding the park.

The difference between the currently proposed
proffer and the Glenmore proffer is the offer to construct public streets around
the park, grade the site, and provide improvements (playgrounds, tennis courts,
restrooms, trails, shelters, pavilions, and a gazebo).
When asked, the Parks and Recreation Director said that he would rather
the County receive a fully developed park of 18 acres with public street access
than 27 acres of undeveloped park land that the County would then have to
improve.

Accepting the proffer for the park land shown in the
Code of Development for this proposal also requires that the Board of
Supervisors deal with the Glenmore proffer. The County Attorney’s office has
recommended that, if the Board believes this park proffer for Rivanna Village at
Glenmore is acceptable, it adopt a resolution saying that by accepting that
proffer, it deems the Glenmore proffer satisfied.

7.Route 250 Buffer and Right
of Way Dedication – The applicant is offering to dedicate 100 feet of
right-of-way along Route 250 East in order to accommodate any possible future
widening. There are several problems with this proffer. First, the applicant
has said in the Code of Development that the actual measurement of 100 feet
would be from the edge of pavement. Zoning has indicated that it must have the
right-of-way dedication be established from the existing right-of-way line.
This will result in less land for dedication, but no less than 100 feet in
appearance. The applicant has said that he will make the change and provide a
reservation for dedication measured from the right-of-way line. Second, the
proffers and Code of Development aren’t clear whether the “buffer” is intended
to be undisturbed, disturbed, landscaped, or planted. The ARB reviewed the
request and asked for more “buffer” area. They indicated that it should not
have a formal “landscape” appearance but be augmented with additional
plantings. Whether the applicant wishes to modify the plan and proffers to
accommodate the ARB’s recommendations is yet unknown; however, the writer of
this staff report is sympathetic to the applicant’s desire to provide for
density at a minimum of 4 units per acre.

8.Buffer Along Glenmore Way
– Similar to the proffer above, the applicant is offering to leave
undeveloped 100 feet along Glenmore Way as a buffer. As with #7 above, it isn’t
clear whether the intention is to disturb, leave totally undisturbed, landscape
the area, or augment with additional vegetation. This situation will need to be
resolved prior to acceptance of the proffers.

9.Affordable Housing –
Like all recently approved residential rezonings, the applicant is proffering to
provide 15% affordable housing. Unlike these other rezonings, the applicant has
laid out the conditions for providing affordable housing in the Code of
Development. Staff believes that having the conditions in the Code will be less
cumbersome from an enforcement standpoint. The Housing Director, County
Attorney’s office, and Zoning all concur on this point. Recommended changes to
the Code of Development were indicated earlier in the report.

WAIVERS AND MODIFICATIONS

The applicant has requested seventeen waivers and
modifications to Zoning Ordinance requirements, six waivers and modifications to
the Subdivision Ordinance, and approval of private streets for the whole
development. Attachment J provides the analysis and recommendations for the
waivers.

Staff supports all but the screening waivers to the
zoning ordinance, with conditions noted in Attachment I. Staff does not support
a blanket waiver to screening of objectionable features where the lot abuts a
rural or residential district. Staff does not support a screening waiver for
double frontage lots.

Of the six subdivision waiver requests, staff
supports four of the requests as indicated in Attachment I. These would allow
for a rural section street for Block C, use of an alternate pavement material
(asphalt) on one side of the street in Block C, ability to waive the requirement
for sidewalk in front of the fire station if an easement is not granted, and
ability to use tree grates on the commercial streets.

Staff does not support a blanket approval for private
streets; however, it does support private street approval for Block C and the
two commercial streets at this time.

OUTSTANDING ISSUES

Throughout this staff report, staff has pointed out
areas that are in further need of resolution prior to being ready for final
action to approve the development. These issues are as follows:

1.
Fixed vs. Optional Elements depicted on a Plan -- There are items that are “fixed” and items that are
“optional” which still need to be tied down from a design standpoint. Staff and
the applicant generally agree on these items; however, the applicant would like
to provide a graphic depiction showing the design features that are fixed and
include it with the Code of Development. Until staff reviews this graphic
depiction, it cannot make a recommendation to the Commission and Board that it
be included in the Code.

2.
The Buffer Area on Route 250 and Glenmore Way
– The ARB recently provided comments on their vision for a screening buffer
along Route 250 East which is very different from the applicant’s proposal.
Planning Commission input is important at this time to direct the applicant as
to what is appropriate. The description of the buffer area in the Code of
Development also needs to be clarified as to whether the buffer will be
undisturbed, disturbed for improvements and grading, augmented with plantings,
etc.

3.
Architectural Standards and Monticello –
Staff has noted to the applicant the need for modifications to the architectural
standards to be clear on requirements and recommendations. Additionally, staff
would like to affirm with Monticello that proposed architectural standards meet
the Monticello design guidelines, once those standards are firm.

4.
Landscape Standards – Staff has identified
areas for which additional commitments are needed for tree preservation at the
perimeter of the development and standards for planting. Although not noted in
this report, the landscape standards in the Code of Development need cleaning
up. There are more “suggestions” than requirements and more work is needed on
establishing species to be used, parking lot landscape standards, and street
tree species.

5.
Use of Retaining Walls/Grading – Staff
believes that additional information is needed relative to the use of retaining
walls and final grading. This information has been provided for other
rezonings, mainly in areas where topography has been much steeper. Staff is
uncomfortable not knowing the expectations of the applicant relative to
retaining walls.

6.
Uses –Between the last Code of
Development and the current Code of Development, the location of some uses have
changed. For instance, assisted living was allowed in three different blocks
previously; now it is in Block G only. The swim/tennis club was previously
intended for Block E, G or J is now proposed as possible in Blocks A, E, G, H,
I, and J. When located in Blocks E, G, or J, the swim club was located more
centrally than it might be in Block H. Staff is also concerned that a swim club
on the perimeter of Block G would not be as desirable as a more central
location. Staff does not know what the perimeter treatment of Block G would be
if the assisted living facility is placed at the edge of the development. Not
mentioned in the report are issues staff believes need further resolution, such
as whether structured or stand alone parking should have a special use permit
and whether Home Occupation Class B should be allowed by-right.

7.
Stormwater Management – Stormwater
management is described in the plan as primarily being underground, with
possible bmp’s in the park and a possible stormwater facility on the Fire
Station site. Staff would like for the Code of Development to be clear that
stormwater management facilities in their final location will not compromise the
integrity of the plan. This issue is important primarily for Block C.

8.
Transit – The transportation proffers of
$3500 per sfd, $3000 per townhouse, and $2500 per apartment/mf unit can also be
used for school impacts. No commitments for transit have been made other than
to say that the development is transit ready. Staff believes that input from
the Commission is important prior to a decision being made.

9.
Information from VDOT relative to Route 250 East
– Staff asks that the Planning Commission review the information from VDOT to
see whether any changes resulting from that information are needed to the
proffers.

10.Other
Changes to the Code – During the week of
writing of this staff report, staff provided a long list of technical changes
needed to the Code and Proffers (approximately seven pages). Among other
things, this list includes having drawings and tables related to setbacks agree
and describing that reservations for dedication of right-of-way or buffer areas
be set from the right-of-way and not edge of pavement. The applicant has
already agreed to make 75 to 80% of the changes. The remaining changes require
further discussion, some of which has taken place in this report.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning
request:

The
proposal is in substantial conformity with the Land Use Plan recommendations
for the Village of Rivanna.

The
proposal is in full conformity with the Neighborhood Model.

Cash
proffers to deal with off-site impacts are similar to other recently
approved rezonings.

A
fully developed public park is offered to the County to deal with park
needs.

The
proposal provides acceptable affordable housing proffers.

Staff has found the following
factors unfavorable to this rezoning:

Staff cannot support
blanket approval for private streets at this time because of the need for
public street interconnections to adjoining parcels and public street access
to the park and fire station.

In addition to the nine
outstanding issues identified in the report, there are too many details
which have not been resolved for the staff to feel comfortable recommending
approval at this time.

Staff has been working on this
project since 2001 and would like to see it completed and approved because it
represents the Neighborhood Model so well and has been vetted publicly so many
Arial. Unfortunately, until resolution of the issues stated above occurs, staff
cannot recommend approval.

The applicant will likely ask
the Planning Commission to approve the rezoning proposal contingent on all of
the outstanding items listed in this report and being resolved prior to the
Board of Supervisors’ public hearing. If the Commission believes it can take
action on the rezoning pending the changes, staff will work with the applicant
to satisfy all concerns prior to the Board hearing.